Gender Differences in Unemployment and Poverty in Four Palestinian Refugee Camps in Jordan

Home , Husn Camp, Irbid camp, Jerash camp, Zarqa

Dr. Abdel Baset Athamneh Dept. of Economics- Yarmouk University Irbid-Jordan

Gender Differences in Unemployment and Poverty in Four Palestinian Refugee Camps in Jordan

Dr. Abdel Baset Athamneh

Abstract This study aims at investigating the effect of gender differences on causing unemployment and poverty inside Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan through estimating the rates of unemployment and poverty among families headed by women and those headed by men. To attain its objectives, this study picked the needed data using an accidental (convenience) sampling technique that included 674 families in four camps: Irbid, Al-Husn, Jerash, and Suf Camps. Descriptive analysis was used to illustrate the impact of the gender of the family head on those rates.

The study found differences in the socioeconomic characteristics of the sample, including family size, family residence space, income levels, education levels, school dropout rates, child labor, dependency rates, etc. The results of the study also showed that unemployment rates among families in the sample as a whole were higher in families headed by women (24.4 percent) than in families headed by men (22.0 percent). Conversely, at the camp level, unemployment rates among families headed by men were higher, except in Irbid camp. However, poverty rates were found to be higher among families headed by women in the sample as whole and in all camps as well; the abject poverty rates in the sample amounted 18.8 percent for families headed by women versus 5.6 percent for families headed by men. The absolute poverty rates were 67.8 percent and 45.6 percent respectively.

Finally, the study recommends further research on gender issues concerning refugee communities, concentrating on qualitative analyses to provide deep interpretations for the phenomena with which refugees live, especially unemployment and poverty.

Keywords: gender inequality, unemployment, poverty, Palestinian refugees

1. OVERVIEW: 1.1 INTRODUCTION:

The study of the socioeconomic characteristics of any community is considered the key to diagnosing the reality of that community and the problems it faces especially those have direct impacts on the life of individuals. Taking into consideration the abilities of individuals and society and the possibilities of the national economy, the diagnosis of the causes and consequences of unemployment and poverty in any community and tackling their negative effects helps decision makers to plan systematically to alleviate such problems. This may come true through adopting strategies to combat poverty and setting macroeconomic policies to push the economic growth forward and therefore creating new job opportunities and increasing the employment levels. Accordingly, decreasing the rates of unemployment will decrease the rates of poverty which in turn improves life standards of people and increases their welfare as well.

Moreover, unemployment and poverty are interdisciplinary problems which they have social, economic, psychological and political consequences and are related to other important issues in society such as: the high dependency rates, the negative attitudes for public opinion, the inequity of income distribution, low productivity, the increase in the rate of crime, etc., which requires comprehensive and long-lasting treatments to the causes, aspects and effects of those issues simultaneously.

Refugee community usually differs from hosting communities in terms of the overall social and economic circumstances due to the lack of the opportunities available to refugees in general in attending schools and acquiescing in specialized training, in addition to their legal status as refugees which in sometimes prevent them get jobs that guarantee permanent income sources. This applies more to female refugees who suffer more than males in getting self-sufficiency and economic empowerment.

The influx of Palestinian refugees to Jordan started in May 1948 due to the Arab-Israeli war; where about 500 thousand refugees expelled from their original homeland Palestine to Jordan (UNRWA, 1995). In 1967, a new forced migration began to the Kingdom as a result of the war between Israel and some of the Arab states, and therefore, Palestinian refugees and displaced

2 persons obliged to flee from the West Bank to the East Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Before that time, particularly in 1950, Jordan witnessed a unification between the two banks, yet, since that time the majority of Palestinian refugees (more than 95%) residing in Jordan have full citizenship including political rights and the right of voting. Nevertheless, about 18% of them still live in refugee camps (Athamneh, 2016).

The United Nations Works and Relief Agency for Palestinian refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has defined a Palestinian refugee as anyone whose “normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict” (UNRWA, 2006). Consequently, Palestinian refugees fled to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip, which were called later the UNRWA’s operational regions. While Palestinian displaced persons in Jordan are Palestinians originating from the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who were internally displaced for the first time during the 1967 Israeli-Arab war to the East Bank of the Kingdom, and who are unable to return to their homes. The majority of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons in Jordan lives outside camps since they are well-integrated in the Jordanian society and the rest in thirteen refugee camps; ten of them are under the mandate of the UNRWA, they are: Irbid, Zarqa, Jabal Al-Hussein, Marka (Hiteen), Suf, Jerash, Azmi Al-Mufti, Baqa, Talbia, and Al-Wihdat, while the other three camps are: Assokhneh, Madaba, and Al-Amir Hassan Quarter (Hnakeen) (DPA, 2016).

The temporary status of the Palestinian refugees and displaced persons camps in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or in the rest of the UNRWAS’s operations does not in any way mean the omission of any of the aspects which directly affect human resources, as a focal point of economic and social development process. It is also an important source of economic growth as an essential determinant of the aggregate demand and aggregate supply in the national economy at the same time. In addition, sustainable economic and social development of the society should target all sectors, classes, and categories regardless the legal status of individuals in the society whether they are permanent residents or refugees.

The crude economic activity rate in Jordan is low in general (24.3%) in 2015 and the labor market suffers from a gender gap. this rate came to 39.3% for males and to only 8.9% for females of the same year, and this gap seems significant where the refined economic activity

3 rates came to 36.7%, 60.5% and 11.0% for the same year respectively. Additionally, unemployment rates in Jordan have experienced big differences between females (22.5%) and males (11.0%) of that year (DOS, 2016a). And because Palestinian refugees have been integrated into the Jordanian society they almost have the same socioeconomic characteristics and circumstances, this study aims at investigating the impact of the gender of the head of the family on unemployment and poverty.

In addition, the study of gender issues became today one of the most important developmental topics which concerns countries and nations as it refers to the empowerment of woman and/ or man and therefore reinforcing their roles in serving the community and emerging economic sufficiency. Whereas gender differences could be a reason for some economic and social problems among of which unemployment and poverty especially in marginalized communities and in groups which suffer from social and economic exclusion.

Hence, this study becomes significant because gender gap became true in Jordan, which impedes woman empowerment and reinforces social exclusion in the society. So the study aims to investigate the impact of gender differences as a cause for unemployment and poverty inside Palestinian refugees and IDPs inside camps in Jordan.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

This study aims to study the effect of gender differences on causing unemployment and poverty inside Palestinian Refugee Camps in Jordan, and in detail, as follows:

1. Identifying some of the demographic and social characteristics concerning families in camps such as sex, age, age structure, the number of the family members, nationality, marital status, education, and the ownership of the housing and its area. 2. Investigating the effect of the gender of family head on some economic variables (indicators) concerning the families such as income, the number of employed, number of unemployed, and place of work, dependency rates, and unemployment rates. 3. Investigating the impact of gender differences on the levels of unemployment through calculating unemployment rates in the sample. 4. Measuring the absolute and abject poverty rates for the sample according to camps and to the gender of the head of the family.

1.3 PROBLEM AND SIGNIFICANCE:

Gender issues became today one the important topics which scientific research aims to tackle as they have interdisciplinary relation with all economic, social, demographic and/ or developmental dimension in the society. The importance of such topic is growing, especially in developing countries, where a woman suffers in general from many problems such as unemployment, social exclusion, poverty, marginalization, etc. This situation is clear larger in vulnerable groups and disadvantaged classes, where refugee communities are considered real examples for low educational levels and modest life opportunities among females than males. Female refugees, in particular, have few chances in getting an education, training and rehabilitation and so little opportunities in getting jobs and emerging, empowerment, and economic sufficiency. Therefore, unemployed-females indicate that idle and unproductive resources exist, which in turn decrease the national income and the total productivity, which means that economic welfare and standards of living of the society are modest.

So, this study comes to elaborate the reasons behind the unemployment and poverty in female-headed families inside the camps in comparison to male-headed families, and through answering the following main question:

“Do the differences in gender have an impact on causing unemployment and poverty among families inside Palestinian camps in Jordan?”

1.4 JORDAN AS A HOST COMMUNITY FOR REFUGEES:

Jordan is considered one of largest host communities for refugees in the Middle East, where the continuous waves of forced immigrations to the country constitute today about one-third of the total population. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the country received, before its independence, waves of Circassian, Chechnya, and Armenian forced-immigrants. Just two years after independence in 1946, Jordan received in 1948 a tremendous influx of refugees in May 1948 due to the Israeli-Arab war where about 500 thousands of Palestinian refugees fled to Jordan and therefore the total population was doubled at that time. After that and particularly in

1950, a political unification occurred between Jordan and the West Bank (the rest of Palestine after 1948 war) and a new what state had the name of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan including the East Bank the West Bank (Athamneh, 2016).

A new wave of forced immigration of Palestinians to Jordan, but this time the influx happened internally from the west bank to the east bank of the kingdom in 1967 as a result of the war between Israel and Jordan, Egypt, and Syria in June of that year, so the new immigrants have been called as “displaced persons”. The number of Palestinian IDPs was estimated by about 390 thousand individuals, where the majority of them (88.5%) fled from the west bank while the rest (11.5%) came to Jordan later from Gaza Strip (The Higher Ministerial Committee, 1967).

After that, Jordan also received during the second half of the seventies of the past century forced- immigrant individuals and families from Lebanon due to the civil war which took place during the period (1975-1990), but the influx in that time was limited and most of the immigrants chose Amman as a final destination. In 1982 and as a result of accidents occurred in Syria especially in Hammah City, many families from Syria had their asylum in Jordan to live in the main cities at that time. Another chapter of involuntary migration to Jordan began in early 1991, where more than 300 thousand of compelled Jordanians, returned home on account of the disputes in the official stands of Jordan and some Arab states from the Gulf War II. Those returnees worked in Kuwait and other Gulf states for a long time and were obliged to return within three months at the end of 1990 and the beginning of 1991 causing a sudden increase of total population by 10%. However, the involuntary immigrants at that time hadn’t been considered refugees because the return to their country which they hold its citizenship (Athamneh, 2016).

The Iraqi refugees represented another mass influx of refugees to Jordan and took place in two phases; the first was after the Gulf War II (January-February 1991) and the second was in 2003 and later, as a result of the US invasion of Iraq (March-April 2003). In May 2007, the number of Iraqi refugees in Jordan was estimated somewhere between 450-500 thousand (FAFO & UNFPA, 2007), while the last census in Jordan (30 November 2015) indicated that the number of Iraqis in Jordan was 130.9 thousand (DOS, 2016b). The journey of Syrian refugees to Jordan has begun since March 2011 and continued till now, where the influx of Syrian immigrants was in mass movements. The momentum of this immigration occurred during the period (2012-2014) and caused major economic, social, demographic, and security impacts on Jordan as a host

community among of which, a rapid increase in population by 20%, where the number of Syrians in Jordan according to 2015 census amounted 1.3 million (DOS, 2016b). About half (629034 thousands) of those immigrants were registered refugees at the UNHCR (UNHCR, 2016), while the rest were considered immigrants have legal residence in Jordan.

Table No. (1) The distribution of Non-Jordanians in Jordan according to nationalities Nationality Palestinians Syrians Egyptians Iraqis Yemenis Libyans Others Total Number 634182 1265514 636270 130911 31163 22700 197385 2918125 % of the total Population 6.65 13.28 6.68 1.37 0.33 0.24 2.07 30.61 Source: Department of Statistics (2016b), Results of the General Population and Housing Census 2015.

Table No. (2) shows that about 31% of the total population of Jordan is non-Jordanians. This ratio, of course, doesn’t include the Palestinian refugees in Jordan where the majority of them (more than 95%) have full citizenship according to the unification of the two banks in Jordan in 1950. By the 1st of December 2015, the number of registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan came to 2,117,361, about 18% of them live inside ten official camps (under the mandate of the UNRWA), in addition to other three camps are administrated by the Jordanian Government, whilst the rest live within the Jordanian society that is because they have full citizenship. Nevertheless, 634182 Palestinians who are originally from Gaza Strip still haven’t the Jordanian citizenship despite they have been living in the country since more than four decades where they are classified as stateless people. Some of them live inside refugee camps especially Suf Camp which is unofficially known as “Gaza Camp” because the majority of its inhabitants are originally from Gaza Strip (DOS, 2016b).

1.5 UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY IN JORDAN:

During the past four decades, the labor market in Jordan witnessed noticeable fluctuations in the rates of unemployment, which ranged from 1.6% in 1976 to 18.8% in 1993, while the rate came to 13% in 2015 (Ibrahim, 1989 and MOL, 1993 & 2015). The main reasons for the high rates of unemployment in the Jordanian labor market since the fifties of the ex-century are attributed to the economic and political conditions, which Jordan has passed through. Successive waves of forced- immigrants and foreign labor flows, which the country has experienced, caused high

7 rates of population growth. Consequently, labor supply has increased dramatically in the short- run and in the long-run leading to an increase in the numbers of job-seekers which pushed unemployment rates to rise.

This coincided with the slowdown in the economic growth in Jordan since the eighties of the twentieth century, compared with the seventies when Jordan witnessed important economic leaps and high growth rates (Al-Omari, 2002), in addition to the rapid increase in the output of the educational system at different stages. The absorptive capacity of the public sector in Jordan also retreated as a main employer in the labor market (employed about 37% of the total employment in 2015) due to the orientation of the country towards the private sector as a motive for economic growth and creating new jobs in on the macro economy.

Economic participation rates are considered low, where the crude economic activity rate came to only 24.3% (39.3% for males and 8.9% for females) in 2015, while the refined-economic activity rate was 36.7% (60.0% for males and 13.3% for females) for the same year. This gender gap in economic participation was reflected in a parallel gap in unemployment rates which reached 13.0% (11.0% for males and 22.5% for females), which is not necessarily related to the rates of educational enrollment where the female/ male ratio in the bachelor stage in Jordan amounted 107.6% (DOS, 2016a). However, in Jordan education is not the only qualification of females in particular to get a job, the nature of the society as a macho society, the nature of labor market in terms of the employment in most of the public sector bodies where males are preferred due to the work hardship (especially military and security work), and the misbelief, woman productivity is lower than that of man in the labor market. Wherefore, unemployment between females is widely spread phenomenon in Jordan and aggravating from year to year.

Poverty is one of the problems which people face in Jordan as poverty affects negatively the life standards and the welfare of individuals and society as a whole. The state of poverty in Jordan hasn't been yet diagnosed well due to lack of information where the surveys concerning this issue are old. The last survey concerning poverty in Jordan was conducted in 2010 where the absolute poverty rate in the Kingdom came to 14.4% where this figure refers to the percentage of Jordanians who located below the absolute poverty limit. This limit is equivalent to the annual expenditures of an individual and amounted 814 JODs. While on family limit was 4395.6 JODs in which 118995 families and 876590 individuals in Jordan suffered from income poverty

Concerning the abject (food) poverty limit in Jordan, it was 0.32% where this figure represents the percentage of Jordanians who located below the annual abject poverty limit, which came to 336 JODs per individual (equivalent to 1814.4 JODs per family). This implies that there were 2206 families and 19540 individuals suffered from abject (food) poverty (UNDP, 2013).

In 2010, there were disparities in poverty rates in different governorates of the Kingdom at which the absolute poverty rates was highest in Ma’an (26.6%) and lowest in Jerash (6.8%). The two governorates also registered the extreme rates of abject poverty (Ma’an:2.7% and Jerash: 0%) (UNDP, 2013).

Table No. (2) 0oea sAds t Ai easo fs tcajes Ana etsl sbA fo seRaR eAna A oea t Ai eas Ana ets tcajes Ana ets0oea 0oea no'o 26.6% 2.68% ciA 25.6% 0.26% aoiao 20.9% 0.00% aoto 19.2% 0.60% nod oa 19.2% 1.27% shodlioT 17.2% 0.33% nofoto 15.1% 0.00% d tlf 15.0% 0.10% ao ao 14.1% 0.34% ko oK 13.4% 0.59% mmo 11.4% 0.35% ba o T 6.8% 0.00% - Source: United Nations Developmental Program (UNDP) (2013), Jordan Poverty Reduction Strategy Final Report, Amman.

Figure No. (1) Abject and absolute poverty rates in Jordan according to governorates (2010)

Abject and absolute poverty rates in Jordan according to governorates (2010)

30,00% 26,60% 25,60% 25,00% 20,90% 19,20% 19,20% 20,00% 17,20% 15,10% 15,00% 14,10% 13,40% 14,40% 15,00% 11,40%

10,00% 6,80%

5,00% 2,68% 1,27% 0,26% 0,00% 0,60% 0,33% 0,00% 0,10% 0,34% 0,59% 0,35% 0,00% 0,32% 0,00%

Absolute Poverty Rate Abject Poverty Rate

2. LITERATURE REVIEW- CONCEPTUAL THEORETICAL ISSUES: 2.1 CONCEPT OF UNEMPLOYMENT:

The International Labor Organization (ILO) “defines the unemployed as numbers of the economically active population who are without work, but available for and seeking work, including people who have lost their jobs and those who have voluntarily left work" (World Bank, 2007, p59).

The following definitions are based on the Resolution concerning statistics of the economically active population, employment, unemployment and underemployment, adopted by the Thirteenth International Conference of Labor Statisticians (October 1982) (ILO, 2016), where the labor force comprises all persons of working age who furnish the supply of labor for the production of goods and services during a specified time-reference period. It refers to the sum of all persons of working age who are employed and those who are unemployed, where the employed comprise

10 all persons of working age who during a specified brief period, such as one week or one day, were in the following categories: (ILO, 2016)

(i) Paid employment (whether at work or with a job but not at work); or

(ii) Self-employment (whether at work or with an enterprise but not at work).

While the unemployed comprise all persons of working age who were: (ILO, 2016)

(i) Without work during the reference period, i.e. we’re not in paid employment or self- employment;

(ii) Currently available for work, i.e. were available for paid employment or self-employment during the reference period; and

(iii) Seeking work, i.e. had taken specific steps in a specified recent period to seek paid employment or self-employment. For purposes of international comparability, the period of job search is often defined as the preceding four weeks, but this varies from country to country.

Therefore, unemployment rate (UR) is defined as the percentage of unemployed persons in the labor force, and would be calculated as follows:

푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푢푛푒푚푝푙표푦푒푑 UR = ∗ 100% 푇표푡푎푙 푙푎푏표푟 푓표푟푐푒

But for a given component group of the labor force, the unemployment rate is the percentage of this group that is unemployed. For example, the URf for females would be calculated as:

푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푢푛푒푚푝푙표푦푒푑 푓푒푚푎푙푒푠 in the working age URf = ∗ 100% 푇표푡푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푓푒푚푎푙푒푠 𝑖푛 푙푎푏표푟 푓표푟푐푒

Similarly, URm for males would be calculated as:

푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푢푛푒푚푝푙표푦푒푑 푚푎푙푒푠 in the working age URm = ∗ 100% 푇표푡푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푚푎푙푒푠 𝑖푛 푙푎푏표푟 푓표푟푐푒

2.2 CONCEPT OF POVERTY:

The classical definition of poverty is based on monetary terms through using the levels of income or consumption to measure poverty and then determining the poor of those who fall below a specific poverty limit or a given level of income or consumption (Grusky and Kanbur, 2006). While the definition has been widened and became a composite measure of three dimensions: life expectancy, educational attainment, and standard of living, measured by income in terms of its purchasing power parity (UNDP, 2006). Low income levels is considered the main aspect of poverty, despite that this problem is not restricted to limited income (DSS, 199 & Pantazis and Levitas, 2006). An extended definition of poverty indicated that the poor shall be taken to mean persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State in which they live (EEC, 1985). While the United Nations (UN) defined absolute poverty as “a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services” (UN, 1995, p 57).

However, absolute poverty implies the inability of a person or a group to get essential needs of food, clothing, shelter, health services, basic education, transportation, and work, whereas abject poverty indicates to the inability of getting the food-needs only (UNDP, 1997). Hence, for any person or human group, poverty means the absence of basic necessities of life implying the insufficiency of the means of earning relative to human needs (Adefolalu, 1992).

Moreover, there are many causes and aspects of poverty including regional, community and household dimensions. Household and individual characteristics have an important impact in causing poverty through the differences in many variables, such as age structure, dependency ratio, gender of family head, employment status, hours worked, property owned, health and nutritional status, education, shelter (World Bank Institute, 2005).

2.3 GENDER ANALYSIS:

Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men (WHO, 2011). It is also the relations between men and women, both perceptual and material. Gender is not determined

12 biologically, as a result of sexual characteristics of either women or men, but is constructed socially (FAO, 1997). According to the UNESCO, gender refers to the roles and responsibilities of men and women that are created in our families, our societies and our cultures. The concept of gender also includes the expectations held about the characteristics, aptitudes and likely behaviors of both women and men (UNESCO, 2003).

Before determining the relation between gender and each of employment, poverty and migration, it is important to refer that the relationship between unemployment and poverty is not explicitly direct, where any conclusions about the impact of unemployment on poverty depends on the particular way in which poverty is measured (DeFina, 2002). Additionally, no conclusive evidence has been found for such relation, which actually needs quantitative analyses in a systematic way (Ryscavage, 1982). On this regard, migration can result from poverty, but this doesn't necessarily mean that poorer people has a higher tendency to migrate than others, due to the costs of migration as an economic process including the opportunity costs (World Bank, 2005). Unemployment and poverty are organically related with social exclusion which refers to the processes by means of which individuals and groups of people have limited rights and opportunities to become fully integrated into society (García & Romero, 2016). It refers to some patterns of social differentiation and inequalities due to religion, ethnicity, caste, social class, and/ or gender (Mathieson, J. et al., 2008). Females are considered as largely marginalized classes in the South, where they suffer unequal opportunities and little chances for social and economic empowerment compared to males due to many factors mainly related to the conditions of their primitive or developing communities.

Furthermore, Poverty could be existed due the disparities of the wages and salaries paid to men and women, which called gender wage gap and measured by dividing the average wage paid to men on that paid to women, where wage differences could be per hour, week, month, or year (ILO, 2013). While the OECD (2016) defined the gender wage gap as the difference between male and female median wages divided by the male median wages, the European Union (2014) recognized the gender pay gap as the difference between men’s and women’s pay, based on the average difference in gross hourly earnings of all employees”.

Moreover, poverty could prevail amongst unemployed persons who haven't permanent sources of income, where women are considered more vulnerable to being unemployed and/ or

13 economically inactive due to fewer opportunities in education and training, and therefore, getting jobs. As for the reasons for the existence of gender wage gap in pay, some theories attributed that to supply factors, due to the difference in the size and quality of invested human resources between men and women. While other theories attributed the gap to the demand side, where there is a structural bias is in action often against women in the labor market, either by the employer or community through the inherited restrictions on women and their working fields (Meulders et al, 2010). However, this phenomenon imposes negative impacts on women's productivity and standard of living of the family, in addition to the country's economic growth. So, the overlapping of gender, unemployment and poverty could be illustrated as follows:

Figure No. (2)

The relationship between gender, unemployment and poverty

Social Exclusion Based on + Macho Society Gender ↓ Fewer Opportunities for Education → Low Economic Participation Rates ↓ Fewer Job Opportunities → Unemployment ↓ Gender Wage Gap → Low Levels for Income ↓ Limited Sources of Income + Wage Discrimination ↓

Poverty

2.4 EMPIRICAL LITERATURE REVIEW:

Many empirical studies found that female-headed families are more likely than male-headed families to be persistently poor (Kelso, 1994), and such families remain in poverty longer than male-headed families. Also female-headed families were at risk of poverty (McLanahan, 1985), and were causing concern even in industrialized countries (Kamerman, 1984). Unemployment rates were also found higher in those families than in married couple families (Levitan & Gallo, 1988).

Tiltnes & Zhang (2014) conducted a field study during October and November 2011on the living conditions of the Palestinian refugee population residing inside Jordan’s 13 Palestinian refugee camps, through a large survey of a linear systematic random sample of 4000 households. This study found that four in five households own their homes; the university studies increasingly popular in camps and educational attainment varies by economic standing; Low labor force participation, especially for women; More education brings about increased labor force participation, particularly for women; few children in the labor force; women tend to work fewer hours than men and specially in the informal sector; slightly higher unemployment amongst women (19% for males versus 15% for males); unemployment amongst youth aged 15 to 24 came to 33%; the mean annual household income for all camp dwellers was 3,276 JD; the poverty rate at the 814 JD poverty line is nearly % (the highest in Jerash 53% and the lowest in Zarqa 19%.

Dermott & Pantazis (2014) presented an analysis of the relationship between gender and poverty in the UK Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE) survey (2012). They found that women living in Britain were marginally poorer and more deprived than men across all our measures, but the gaps are not consistently significant. Also, poverty rates and deprivation levels declined with age and the largest gender gaps are present between women and men in the middle age groups, where older women and men have the lowest rates of poverty and the gap between them is around one percentage point.

Rivera (2013) analyzed women’s economic participation in Mexico estimating an econometric model to investigate the influence of various socio-economic factors on that participation. The study found that the main barriers to female participation were the lack of education and the absence of diverse work possibilities in industries, in addition no significant relationship between

15 women headed households and WEP was approved, indicating that women in this group are likely to be in the labor market when they are the family head as well as when they are not. The study also showed that the poorer the community the more likely it is that women will participate

The National Women’s Law Center (2011) used a gender analysis of national Census data for 2010 in the United States, where the data revealed that women and children in 2010 continued to be disproportionately impacted by poverty. The highest poverty rates were among female-headed families with children, black, Hispanic, and Native American women, children, women with disabilities, and women 65 and older living alone. Concerning adult women in 2010, more than 1 in 7 women, over 17.2 million, lived in poverty, the poverty rate for women (14.5 percent) was 3.3 percentage points higher than it was for men (11.2 percent), the poverty rate for female- headed families with children was 40.7 percent, compared to 24.2 percent for male-headed families with children. The study also showed that the poverty rate for female-headed families with children was 40.7 percent, compared to 24.2 percent for male-headed families with children, and 8.8 percent for families with children headed by a married couple.

Atom & Athamneh (2008) aimed at determining the demographic and economic motives of poverty in Irbid and Al-Husn Camps for Palestinian Refugees as well as determining the ratio of poor families there.. The study based on a data base derived from the survey that carried out in 2006. The survey included some socio-economic and demographic variables related to the households residing the two camps. A random sample of about 20% of the total dwellings was chosen therefore. The results of the study showed that the problem of poverty in the two camps was aggravated as a result of the large family size, low family's average expenditure on education, high unemployment rates, and limited income sources. The study also showed low rates of economic participation, especially for women, at which the rate reached 6.0% only. Moreover, the study revealed that monthly average income was also low (193.3 JDs) simultaneously with a small dwellings area (3.19 rooms for each), low annual average expenditure of the family on education, and relatively low dependency.

Faridi, et al. (2009) estimated the various factors which affect the women work participation basing on the cross-section data collected through field survey in Bahawalpur District of Pakistan. The study found that educational attainment levels turn out to be very significant determinant of female’s labor force participation, where female education is necessary for better

16 employment opportunities. In addition, the presence of children in early age groups reduced the female labor force participation. The study concluded that the basic level of education is not sufficient to enter in the labor market, while the female labor market participation increases with the rising levels of higher education. It also concluded that females are more likely to participate in rural market activities. Consequently, rural infrastructure is needed to be improved and government should also start the rural development programs for creating more employment opportunities for women.

Moepeng & Tisdell (2008) attempted to explore the socio-economic situation of female heads and poor heads of household in rural Botswana by means of a case study of the village of Nshakazhogwe The survey of household heads in Nshakazhogwe revealed that 57 of the 218 female-headed households in the village were in poverty, which is 26.15 percent compared with 18 of the 112 male-headed households, that is 16.07 percent. Thus if this is a representative village for rural eastern Botswana, the incidence of rural poverty is likely to be higher in female- headed households than male headed households. The results of this study indicated that poverty tends to rise with household size.

Spierings, et al. (2008) conducted using bivariate cross tabulations and multilevel logistic regression analysesa study includes six MENA countries: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia, and combined large representative datasets (using data for 65,000 women) from the Pan Arab Project for Family Health (PAPFam) and the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). The study found different factors at different levels to influence women’s employment simultaneously, which depends on whether a job is needed, whether a job can be obtained, and whether having a job is considered acceptable. Needs, opportunities and values at both macro and micro level manifest themselves in constraining or enabling form. The study also revealed that the effect of education was stronger for women with less care duties and women married to higher educated partners, and stressed the importance of education as a major road towards women’s empowerment in these countries.

Snyder, et al. (2005) examined race and residential variation in the prevalence of female-headed families with children through using data from the U.S. Census. Special attention is paid to cohabiting female-headed families with children, and those that are headed by a single female caring for at least one grandchild because these have been identified as important living

17 arrangements for single mothers and their children. The study found that cohabiting and grandparental female-headed households with children comprised in 2000 one-third of all female-headed households with children, and cohabiting households are found disproportionately in nonmetropolitan areas. The study ended that household poverty is highest for single mother household heads that do not have other adult household members, where the earned income from a cohabiting partner and retirement income account for much of the additional income sources that life cohabiting and grandparental female-headed households out of poverty.

Rodgers (1994) introduced a systematic investigation of why poverty rates for female-headed families are so much higher than those of male-headed families and married-couple families. She found differences between the poverty rates of female-headed families and other family types can be explained partially by the fact that families headed by females have less desirable levels of these factors. The study also concluded that female-headed families, on average, have less education, have more dependents, have fewer nondependent adults, are more likely to have a work disability, where the marginal effects of education were more favorable to female- headed families than to other family types suggesting that improved access to education may close the gap between the poverty rates of female-headed families and other family types.

3. METHODOLOGY: 3.1 THE STUDY QUESTIONS:

This study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the most important changes in the economic, social and demographic variables for respondents?

2. Are there significant differences between the averages of each level of economic variables for families, as well as socio-demographic variables between camps have attributed to the difference in gender of the head of the family or other members?

3. What is the impact of the difference in gender of the head of the family on unemployment rates and dependency ratios inside camps?

3.2 POPULATION AND SAMPLE:

The population of this study included all the families in camps of Irbid, Al-Husn, Jerash and Suf for Palestinian refugees and displaced persons. At the time of the interviews, the total number of families was 17122. The regions of the study are:

1. Irbid camp in is located the Northern part of Irbid city and it is considered an integral part thereof. This camp is one of four camps set up in Jordan after 1948 war to host Palestinian refugees, and specifically in 1950 on an area of 234 acres. In the first stage, 4,000 Palestinian refugees were inhabited in tents, and then in 1954 they moved to modest construction. By the end of 2014, the number of registered Palestinian refugees came to about 25 thousand and the number of families to 3862 (DPA, 2016).

2. Al-Husn camp is considered one of the six camps established in Jordan in 1968 after the 1967 war, where it was established on an area of 758 acres just 10 Kilometers to the south of Irbid City and becomes today very close to Southern part of Al-Husn Town. When it was established, 12500 Palestinians refugees and displaced persons inhabited the camp. By the end of 2014the number of registered refugees was 22 thousand while the number of families was 4505 (DPA, 2016).

3. Suf camp was established in 1967 on an area of 536 acres to the north of Jerash City. The number of registered refugees residing the camp came by the end of 2014 to 19,927, where the number of families in which the family was 4029, and the number of housing units which amounted to 1179 units (DPA, 2016).

4. Jerash camp was established in 1968 on 531.4 acres near to Jerash City. By the end of 2014, the total number of its population came to 24,713, the number of families to 4726, the number of housing units to 2130 (DPA, 2016).

The sample of the study was selected using non-probability sampling technique through the convenience (accidental) sample, where field researchers hadn’t predetermined the interviewees but interviewed respondents who agreed to participate. This type of sampling is characterized by the ease in the selection of observations, low cost, and time saving (Saunders and Thornhill,

2012). The sample included 674 families and was distributed between the regions of the study are as follows: Irbid camp 262 families, Al-Husn camp 140 families, Jerash camp 107 families and Suf camp 165 families. The distribution of the sample according to camp is shown in the following figure:

Figure No. (3) The distribution of sample according to camp (%)

The distribution of sample according to camp (%)

Suf Camp 24% Irbid camp 39%

Jreash Camp 16%

Al-Husn camp 21% Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jreash Camp Suf Camp

3.3 THE STUDY TOOL:

The researcher designed a questionnaire that covered all variables and questions necessary to ensure the achievement of the study objectives and included social, economic, and demographic dimensions related to the members of the sample. The questionnaire consisted initially of 64 items.

To ascertain the validity of the study tool, it was sent to 10 professional referees from faculty members in some of the Jordanian universities, so as to ensure that the tool suits the purposes of the study. Referees concentrated on the content of paragraphs according to the following criteria: appropriateness of paragraphs, thoroughness of paragraphs, accuracy of the formulation of paragraphs, and the clarity of the expressions far from dual meanings. However, any paragraph which didn't get the 80% agreement from referees was omitted, and therefore the tool became

20 consisted of 61 items. In addition, a pilot survey was conducted in the four camps by 15 interviews in each camp, taking care that the 60 families of this survey were excluded from the sample of the study so as to verify the building validity of the tool by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients for the tool as whole, and between its paragraphs as well.

3.4 THE STUDY METHODS:

In order to answer the questions of the study, the descriptive statistical analysis was used to summarize the results of the study, through frequencies, averages, standard deviations etc., particularly in clarifying the characteristics of the study sample. The study used that to hold comparisons between the families headed by women and that headed by men in terms of some demographic and economic variables:

1. Demographic variables concerning the head of the family, such as sex, age, place of residence, marital status, the level of education, and family size. 2. Economic variables related to the family including average income, the number of employed individuals, and the number of unemployed individuals, as well as the employment status of husband and wife.

3.5 STUDY LIMITATIONS:

The findings of the current study are limited to the sample only, which was chosen in a non- probability sampling technique (convenient sample), and therefore, a generalization of findings on the population of the study is invalid. The study is also spatially limited on the areas that the sample was selected from, i.e. the four camps (Irbid, Al-Husn, Jerash, and Suf), and within the time frame which through it data was collected, which was during 2014.

4. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY SAMPLE:

In this part, the characteristics of the study sample will be displayed through estimating the mean and the standard deviation for the main variables included in the tool of the study for the sample as a whole. Table No. (2) indicates that the average family size for the sample is relatively high (7.4004) compared to that of the Jordanian society as whole which according to the General

Census results (2015) came to 4.8 persons (DOS, 2016) where the maximum family size was 19 persons, and the minimum case was two persons. The relatively low standard deviation of the family size (2.4) points out that most of the families in the sample are large. With respect to the average number of family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship, it amounted to 6.35 persons referring the fact that the majority of Palestinian refugees residing in Jordan have full citizenship due to the unification between the two banks of Jordan in 1950. While the average number of IDPs, who fled to Jordan due to the war of 1967, was 1.5 per family.

Table No. (3) The average of variables concerning families in the study sample Variable Mean Standard deviation Family size (person) 7.4004 2.42068 Number of family members who hold the Jordanian 6.3502 5.30653 citizenship (person) Number of IDPs in the family (person) 1.5047 5.55479 Father age (year) 46.9058 8.10503 Mother age (year) 42.2950 6.30377 Duration since the family lived in the camp (year) 36.8232 19.33197 Family residence space (squared meter) 119.1419 102.03231 Family monthly income (Jordanian Dinar) 471.1 363.05246 Number of female children who are studying in public schools 1.4518 1.25799 Number of male children who are studying in public schools 1.0541 1.17622 Annual family expenditure on education (Jordanian Dinar) 1083.7241 2326.7703 Number of employed males in the family 0.8968 0.98235 Number of employed females in the family 0.7205 1.384246 Number of unemployed males in the family 0.3804 1.18893 Number of unemployed females in the family 0.5513 1.64461 Number of employed below working age in the family 0.1513 0.62207 The table also shows that there were average age differences between father and mother of the same family, where the average was 46.9 years for fathers with a maximum observation of 95 years and a minimum one of 17 years. On the other hand, the average for mothers was 42.1 years with a maximum average of 84 and a minimum one of 16 years.

Concerning the family residence inside camps, the average duration since the family residence came to 36.8 with a high standard deviation (19.3) because the population of the study included

Irbid camp which was established in 1950 and the other three camps which were established after the war of 1967. Here, the stupendous thing that some families have witnessed the establishment of the camp and they are still living inside it today. Anyway, the family residence space measured by squared meter was 119.1 accompanied with the high standard deviation (102) showing the disparities in the standards of living even inside camps. This was reflected in the big difference between the maximum and minimum observation here which run to 240 and 30 square meters respectively. These disparities look more obvious through the modest level of average family monthly income (471.1 JDs) with a tremendous sign for income inequality, where the standard deviation came high (363.1). Considerably more, the maximum average of family monthly income was 6000JDs, while the study found some families didn't have income sources, but they depend on urgent assistance and charity.

Regarding education, the results of table No. (2) shows that the average number of children who are enrolled in public schools was 1.45 for females and 1.05 for males confirming the fact that school enrolling rates in Jordan, in general, is higher for females, where the female/ male students ratio in the Secondary stage was 111.5 in 2015 (DOS, 2016). Moreover, the annual family expenditure on education in all stages came to 1083.7 JDs. Disparity appeared again, but this time in spending on education ranging from null to 32000 JDs.

According to males, the table shows that the average number of employed persons in the family was about 0.90, while the average number of unemployed ones was 0.3804. Unlike females, where the average number of unemployed came to 0.5513, and was close to that of employed (0.72). Families stated that child labor is a profound phenomenon inside camps where the average number of employed below working age in the family run to 0.15 person which means that, on average, there is at least one case of child labor amongst any seven families.

According to the ownership of the family residence, the results refers that 81.5% of them are owned by the family, 17.2% are leased, and 1.3% of the families stated that their residences are neither owned nor leased. This is related to families who have had approvals, from other families which left camps, to live free of charge in their places. This is widely spread between close relatives in particular.

Figure No. (4) The distribution of families according to residences ownership (%)

The distribution of families according to residences ownership (%) Other Leased 1% 17%

Owned 82%

Owned Leased Other

Based on the results, wages and salaries came first as the main source of the family’s income (56.0%), then the remittances of their workers abroad (17.3%), while the rest income sources were distributed as follows: rents from land (1.1%), interests from money saved in banks (0.4%), commercial profits (4.1%), charitable aid (4.6%), Zakat committees (1.8%), supports from parents and relatives (2.1%), social development aid (5.3%), hardship cases aid provided by the UNRWA (2.0%), and other sources (5.2%).

Figure No. (5) The distribution of families according to their main income source (%)

The distribution of families according to their main income source (%)

Other sources 5,2 Remittances from abroad 17,3 Hardship cases aid provided by the UNRWA 2 Social development aid 5,3 Supports from parents and relatives 2,1 Zakat committee 1,8 Chartible aid 4,6 Commercial profits 4,1 Interests from money saved in banks 0,4 Rents from land 1,1 Wages and salaries 56 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Concerning the family property outside the camp, 88.2% of the respondents stated that their families haven’t any kind of property (excluding their residences if they are originally owning them), while 12.8% of the respondents mentioned that they have property and have been distributed according to main property pattern, which they determined as follows: real estates (28.4%), land (45.7%), cars (12.3%), craft shops (2.5%), groceries (1.2%), and other forms of property (9.9%). This distribution expresses the priority of camp residents to possess things that have low risk, depreciation, and decrease in value, but high returns.

Figure No. (6) The distribution of families according to their main property form (%)

The distribution of families according to their main property form (%) 50 45,7

40 28,4 30

20 12,3 9,9 10 2,5 1,2 0 Real estates Land Cars Craft shops Greceries Other

Child labor seems a serious problem inside camps for both males and females, where 18.9% of the families of the sample have at least one working child below the age of 15. The distribution

25 of those families according to the number of working children was as follows: one worker (51.0%0, two workers (22.4%), three workers (14.3%), four workers or more (12.2%).

Figure No. (7) The distribution of families which had child labor according to the number of working children (%)

The distribution of families which had child labor according to the number of working children (%)

Four or more working children Three working children12% 14% One working child 51%

Two working children 23%

One working child Two working children Three working children Four or more working children

The results also showed that 78.0% of the families mothers don’t seek for jobs and they are indeed housekeepers only, while 4.7% of them are considered unemployed, despite they were able, qualified and seeking seriously for getting jobs. Also, 2.9% of wives were retired, while the rest of wives (14.4%) were employed. The percentage distribution of the employed wives according to the employer was as follows: Jordanian Government (39.8%), private sector (21.5%), own business (12.9%), UNRWA (22.6%), and other employers (3.2%).

Figure No. (8) The distribution of the employed wives according to employer (%)

The distribution of the employed wives according to employer (%)

Other employers 3,2%

Unrwa 22,6%

Own business 12,9%

Private sector 21,5%

Jordanian Government 39,8%

0,0% 5,0% 10,0%15,0%20,0%25,0%30,0%35,0%40,0%45,0%

Another important phenomenon found in camps, which is school dropout, especially at early ages. The results indicated that 24.5% of the families in the sample had one or more kids who experienced school dropout. Families attributed that to some factors, the main motive behind that in the perception of families was distributed as follows: school failure (28.0%), early marriage (8.6%), disintegration of family (14.3%), sufficiency in a certain phase of education (7.4%), helping family in daily needs (6.9%), family poverty (9.7%), desire to work (3.4%), reasons related to school administration practices (2.9%), careless and indifference among students (13.7%), and other motives (5.2%).

Figure No. (9) The distribution of the main motive behind school dropout (%)

The distribution of the main motive behind school dropout (%)

5,2% Careless and indifference… 13,7% 2,9% Desire to work 3,4% 9,7% Helping family in daily needs 6,9% 7,4% Disintegration of family 14,3% 8,6% School failure 28,0% 0,0% 5,0% 10,0%15,0%20,0%25,0%30,0%

The number of working dropout students was very small and came to 64 (37 males and 27 females). Males were distributed according to workplace or nature of work as follows: car garages and services (16.2%), homes of other families (8.1%), peddlers (21.6%), agriculture (8.1%), industry (8.1%), construction (8.1%), begging (2.7%), other places (27.0%), where females were found working in four places: homes of other families (59.3%), peddlers (18.5%), agriculture (3.7%), and other places (18.5%). The figures related to "other places" were relatively high for both males and females and interpret that although admitting that their kids who became out of school were working, a significant portion of families declined to specify those kids’ workplace. Also, the aforementioned figures express the differences between females and males in their workplaces and reflect the appropriateness of the nature of the work to each group.

Figure No. (10) The distribution of students who dropped out schools according to gender and workplace (%)

The distribution of students who dropped out schools according to gender and workplace (%)

27,00% Other places 18,50% 2,70% Begging 0,00% 8,10% Construction 0,00% 8,10% Industry 0,00% 8,10% Agriculture 3,70% 21,60% Peddlers 18,50% 8,10% Homes of other families 59,30% 16,20% Car garages and services 0,00%

0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00% 50,00% 60,00% 70,00% Males Females

The overwhelming majority (94.9%) of students in school age who dropped out didn’t join any to kind of training courses versus only 5.1% of them who enrolled. The persons who enrolled training were distributed according to training bodies as follows: Jordanian Vocational Training Corporation (64.6%), public institution (6.3%), private institution (14.6%), voluntary organization (6.3%), international agency (6.3%), and other bodies (2.1%). Taking into consideration that only 48 persons who took the training courses. It should be noted here that the number of workers among the dropped out children in the sample was 64, which is greater than the number of their counterparts who joined to training courses. While the total number of the dropped out students was 245 including 127 males and 118 females.

Figure No. (11) The distribution of children enrolled in training courses according to training bodies (%)

The distribution of children enrolled in training courses according to training bodies (%) 70,0% 64,6% 60,0% 50,0% 40,0% 30,0% 20,0% 14,6% 6,3% 6,3% 6,3% 10,0% 2,1% 0,0% Jordanian Public Private Voluntary International Other bodies Vocational institution institution organization agency Training Corporation

In general, those working children were not exposed to the employer exploitation, where 85.1% of the families stated that they didn’t notice that. The rest of families (14.4%) believed that their working children were exposed to one or more forms of exploitation. They determined the main forms of exploitation in low wages, physical (hard nature of work), long working hours, moral (lack of respect), and otherwise. However, the number of cases were exposed to exploitation came to 10 only.

Despite exploitation, the working children still in their work due to some reasons which were determined by families, such as the continuing financial need, the absence of government control, attempt to self-prove by a child, the absence of a suitable alternative.

In addition, 77.4% of the families in the sample believed that unemployment is a serious problem among youth in camps and they attributed that to some reasons. The main reason for youth unemployment in the perceptions of families were distributed as follows: low educational level (11.2%), ineffective employment policies (8.7%), lack of harmony between their education and the requirements of labor market (9.2%), shame culture (37.4%), the lack of feasible job opportunities (22.7%), and other reasons (10.9%).

Figure No. (12) The distribution of the main reason behind youth unemployment in camps (%)

The distribution of the main reason behind youth unemployment in camps (%)

Other reasons 10,90%

Lack of feasible job opportunities 22,70%

Shame culture 37,40% Lack of harmony between their 9,20% education and the requirements of… Ineffective employment policies 8,70%

Low educational level 11,20%

0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00%

On the other hand, families suggested some solutions tackle unemployment among youth in camps through adopting policies and procedures. According to those families, the distribution of the most effective-suggested solution was as follows: education enrollment (23.7%), vocational education enrollment (15.8%), enroll in training and rehabilitation courses (2.6%), the establishment of public projects so as to increase the employment in camps (39.5%), increasing the direct governmental aid to camps (10.5%), overcoming the culture shame (5.3%), and other suggestions (2.6%). It seems clear that about half of the families counted on the role of government in solving unemployment. Furthermore, despite that 37.4% of the families attributed the problem to shame culture only 5.3% of them suggested overcoming this culture as a solution to unemployment.

Figure No. (13) The distribution of the main suggestion to solve youth unemployment in the camps (%)

The distribution of the main suggestion to solve youth unemployment in camps (%)

Other suggestions 2,6%

Overcoming the culture shame 5,4%

Direct governmental aid to camps 10,5%

The establishment of public projects 39,6%

Enroll in training and rehabilitation courses 2,6%

Vocational education enrollment 15,8%

Education enrollment 23,7%

0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0% 35,0% 40,0% 45,0%

5. GENDER DIFFERENCES AS A CAUSE FOR AND UNEMPLOYMENT POVERTY: In this section, the study will introduce the differences in some socio-economic characteristics of the sample resulted from the differences in the gender of the head of the family. Those characteristics will be represented by using the averages and standard deviations of some important variables concerning families (Table No. (4)). Then, the study will answer the central question which rose, whether gender differences determine the rates of unemployment and poverty concerning families in the sample.

5.1 GENDER AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE:

The results showed differences in terms of some of the socioeconomic variables of the sample, where the family size was larger in those headed by men (7.5467) persons versus 6.5326 persons for families headed by women. The number of family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship was also larger in families headed by men (6.7667) against 6.1574 which were headed by women. In addition, the number of IDPs in the family in the two groups came to 1.6712 and 0.8529 respectively. While the age of the family’s father and family’s mother were higher in families headed by women (47.1308 and 43.3784 years respectively) than those in families headed by men (46.8574 and 42.0650 years respectively). Concerning the family residence space measured by squared meters, it was larger for families headed by women

(114.3929) whilst it was 112.8321 in families headed by men. However, contrary to the differences in the averages of the aforementioned variables due the gender differences were small, the differences in the family monthly income measured by Jordanian Dinar was considerable where the monthly income for families headed by men was 492.7 versus only 330.8 for families headed by women. Table No. (4) also shows that employment levels for males was higher in families headed by men, while unemployment levels for females was higher in families headed by women, which indicates the inequivalent opportunities between males and males in getting jobs in general. Also, child labor phenomenon seemed to be more widely spread in families headed by women as the number of employed below working age in the family was 0.2111 and about 1.6 times of that in families headed by men.

Lower income for females was accompanied by fewer opportunities to be employed especially in case of the families headed by men, unlike who have a relatively higher income and low levels of unemployment in families headed by women in particular. Unless family residence space and family expenditure on education, the rest of variables in the latest table indicated better life conditions of families headed by men. Nevertheless, an important indicator came for the benefit of families headed by women, that is the expenditure on education, which is despite low levels of income of that families is indeed considered a real investment in human capital to pave the way for children to better future. Although, child labor in those families expresses some kind of sacrifice afforded by one or more child in the family to rescue other children through assisting the mother and increasing income sources and therefore allocating additional expenditures on education, especially in higher education in universities.

Table No. (4) The average of variables concerning families in the study sample

The head of the family Variable Females Males Mean Standard Mean Standard deviation deviation

Family size (person) 6.5326 2.39638 7.5467 2.21800 Number of family members who hold the Jordanian 6.1574 3.14200 6.7667 3.54949 citizenship (person)

Number of IDPs in the family (person) 0.8529 2.38143 1.6712 6.08418 Father age (year) 47.1308 5.54924 46.8574 8.55881 Mother age (year) 43.3784 5.88381 42.0650 6.37100 Duration since the family lived in the camp (year) 35.6395 19.7775 36.6705 19.35192 Family residence space (squared meter) 114.3929 133.726 112.8321 54.80214 Family monthly income (Jordanian Dinar) 330.8 159.412 492.7 325.346 Number of female children who are studying in public schools 1.5269 1.41107 1.4440 1.22991 Number of male children who are studying in public schools 0.9674 1.01040 1.0873 1.21649 Annual family expenditure on education (Jordanian Dinar) 1096.51 1295.29 780.833 972.0570 Number of employed males in the family 0.8037 0.78234 1.0333 0.66868 Number of employed females in the family 0.4095 0.53160 0.1000 0.40258 Number of unemployed males in the family 0.3778 0.94534 0.3808 1.52414 Number of unemployed females in the family 0.5222 1.22492 0.5562 1.82606 Number of employed below working age in the family 0.2115 0.66352 0.1333 0.43417

Table No. (5) shows the existence of some differences in the socio-economic characteristics for the sample between camps, where the largest average family size (7.6824 persons) was in Jerash camp for families headed by women, while the smallest size (6.2084) was found in Suf camp. However, concerning the average size for families headed by woman it was also a maximum in Jerash camp (7.6495) and a minimum in Irbid camp (7.6495). Moreover, noticeable differences in the average number of family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship, at which it was the highest in Irbid camp (7.6) for families headed by men and the lowest in Jerash camp (3.0) for families headed by women, unlike the average number of IDPs in the family, where it ranged between 0.8 in Suf camp and 2.0 in Jerash camp for families headed by women in both cases. The averages concerning the number of IDPs are negatively correlated with the averages of

34 family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship, as unlike refugees, the majority of the IDPs inside camps don’t hold the Jordanian citizenship. Also, families headed by men registered the highest average residence space (157.5) in Jerash camp, while the lowest average (101.6) was for families headed by women in Suf camp.

It worth to mention that the average monthly income of the family was higher in all camps for the families headed by men, where the average reached its highest level (560.0 JDs) in Jerash camp and was a minimum (296.7JD) at the same camp, but for families headed by women. The concern in education for families headed by women was more than that for families headed by men, this was obvious in allocating much more funds to finance their kids’ education. The annual average family expenditure on education was the highest in Suf camp (1746.3 JDs) and the lowest in Al-Husn camp (523.6 JDs) for families headed by women in both camps. In the same context, the average number of female children who are studying in public schools was a maximum in Jerash (2.8) for families headed by women, while, the maximum average for male came to (1.1) in Suf camp, but for families headed by men noting to the big difference between the two averages.

Employment levels represented by the average number of employed in the family, according to table (5) without a specific trend toward families headed by females or by males. This also applied to unemployment levels, represented by the average number of unemployed in the family. But, concerning child labor, although this phenomenon was not widespread in camps, but it seemed scantily existed only amongst families headed by women.

Table No. (5) The differences in the socioeconomic variables for the sample according to the family head and camp Variable Irbid camp AL-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

Family size (person) 6.3810 7.4187 6.4286 7.5711 7.6824 7.6495 6.2084 7.6215

Number of family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship (person) 6.7 7.6 5.7 4.6 3.0 6.8 6.2 6.8

Number of IDPs in the family (person) 1.3 1.3 1.1 2.1 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.9

Duration since the family lived in the camp (year) 32.4 24.7 36.9 32.0 33.4 35.5 35.9 37.3

Family residence space (squared meter) 114.4 112.8 132.0 110.0 143.0 157.5 101.6 114.6

Family monthly income (Jordanian Dinar) 310.1 553.9 336.7 453.7 296.7 560.0 379.6 402.5

Number of female children who are studying in public schools 1.8 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.8 2.2 1.3 2.4

Number of male children who are studying in public schools 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.1

Annual family expenditure on education (Jordanian Dinar) 907.6 791.4 523.6 550.0 1166.7 773.3 1746.3 1004.3

Number of employed males in the family 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.9

Number of employed females in the family 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6

Number of unemployed males in the family 0.5750 0.4342 0.1905 0.5357 0.2000 0.6598 0.2500 0.3139

Number of unemployed females in the family 0.7000 0.6244 0.3333 0.4160 1.000 0.6082 0.2917 0.5548

Number of employed below working age in the family 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

5.2 DEPENDENCY RATIOS:

The dependency ratio is defined as the number of the persons who are out of the age of labor force divided by labor force (the number of those who are within the working age) (The United Nations, 2002). So this ratio could be expressed as follows:

푝푒푟푠표푛푠 𝑖푛 푎푔푒푠푏푒푙표푤 15 푦푒푎푟푠 + 푝푒푟푠표푛푠 𝑖푛 푡ℎ푒 푎푔푒푠 표푓 65 푦푒푎푟푠 표푟 푚표푟푒 Dependency ratio = ∗ 100% 푝푒푟푠표푛푠 𝑖푛 푤표푟푘𝑖푛푔 푎푔푒 (15 − 65)푦푒푎푟푠

This ratio reflects the burden that the people in the labor force bear in taking care of the rest of the society, so the higher the ratio the heavier the burden is. Also, it refers the quality of life of families and the country as well, where the higher the ratio is, the larger the economically inactive people in the society are.

Table No. (6) shows that the dependency ratio for the sample as a whole was 62.4% which is close to that concerning to Jordan (61.4%) in 2015 (DOS, 2016). This ratio became high in the families headed by women (75.2%) compared to that headed by men (60.7%). This significant difference also applied on camps, where dependency ratios in families headed by men were lower than those in families headed by women in all camps, but in different degrees. Concerning camps, the highest dependency ratio was found in Jerash camp (72.4%) and the lowest in Suf camp (56.5%), while in term of families headed by women it was the highest in Al-Husn camp (90.1%) and the lowest in Irbid camp (70.7%). For families headed be men, the ratio was the maximum in Jerash camp (71.8%) and the minimum in Irbid camp (55.6%). Consequently, dependency ratios regarding camps were mainly determined by the ratios related to families headed by men as the number of families headed by women in the sample were only 90 out of 674 families.

Serious gaps were found in camps between ratios related to families headed by women and those headed by men. The greatest gap was found in Al-Husn camp where the previous two ratios came to 90.1% and 66.9% respectively. Unlike Suf camp where the gap was minimum; the same two ratios were 60.2% and 56.0% respectively. It is noticeable to mention here that maximum dependency ratio for families headed by women (90.1%) was accompanied with a relatively small family size (6.4286 persons), while the maximum dependency ratio for families headed by men (7.8%) coincided with a relatively large family size (7.6495 persons).

Table No. (6) Dependency ratios according to the family head gender and camp (%)

Average Dependency The average number of family members No. of ratio (%) according to age (years) family members aae aa saes nes a seTo s Head of the Camp family o fsna A smA a ae Female 3.7381 0.1667 2.4762 6.3810 70.7 d tlfsjomI Male 4.7688 0.1152 2.5347 7.4187 55.6 Total 4.5892 0.1245 2.5246 7.2383 57.7 Female 3.3810 0.0000 3.0476 6.4286 90.1 p sjomI- i Male 4.5357 0.1770 2.8584 7.5711 66.9 Total 4.3534 0.1493 2.8881 7.3908 69.8 Female 4.4000 0.2000 3.0824 7.6824 89.8 Jerash camp Male 4.4536 0.0619 3.1340 7.6495 71.8 Total 4.4388 0.0875 3.1266 7.6529 72.4 Female 3.8750 0.2917 2.0417 6.2084 60.2 p dsjomI Male 4.8978 0.1460 2.5985 7.6215 56.0 Total 4.7453 0.1677 2.5155 7.4285 56.5 Female 3.7283 0.1630 2.6413 6.5326 75.2

The whole Male 4.6972 0.1264 2.7231 7.5467 60.7

sample Total 4.5573 0.1317 2.7114 7.4004 62.4

This indicates the hard conditions which families headed by women live in general due to the absence of a father in most of the cases resulting in distortions in the age structure of families, where the number of subordinates who are out of the labor force increases at the expense of economically active persons within the labor force. This could be the motive behind families headed by women in concentrating on education to prepare their children to become economically active in future so as to improve the life quality of the families.

Figure No. (14) Dependency ratios according to the family head gender and camp (%)

Dependency ratios according to the family head gender and camp (%) 100 90,1 89,8 90

80 74,2 75,2 70,7 69,8 71,8 70 66,9 60,7 62,4 57,7 60,2 60 55,6 56 56,5 50 40 30 20 10 0 Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample

Female Male Total

5.3 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES:

The International Labor Organization (ILO) defines unemployment to covers persons aged 15 to 64 who during the reference period were available for work, seeking for work, but were unable to find work. The unemployment rate is defined as the percentage of the labor force that is unemployed at any given date (ILO, 2009) & (Dornbusch and Fischer, 1994). So unemployment rate could be expressed by the following equation:

푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푢푛푒푚푝푙표푦푒푑 Unemployment rate = ∗ 100% 푇표푡푎푙 푙푎푏표푟 푓표푟푐푒

The labor force includes the people who are economically active within the working age (15-64) years regardless their employment status whether employed or unemployed. Unemployment rate indicates to the idle human capital in the national economy or in a given community, and the reduction in output and income there, therefore.

Table No. (7) Unemployment rates of the sample according to camp (%) The average number of The average unemployed family number of Unemployment members family rate (%) members

(15-64) years

Head of the Total Camp family Females Males Female 0.7000 0.5750 0.6375 3.7381 34.1 d tlfsjomI Male 0.6244 0.4342 1.0586 4.7688 22.2 Total 0.6884 0.4087 1.0971 4.5892 23.9 Female 0.3333 0.1905 0.5238 3.3810 15.5 p sjomI- i Male 0.4160 0.5357 0.9517 4.5357 21.0 Total 0.5180 0.3657 0.8837 4.3534 20.3 Female 1.000 0.2000 1.2000 4.4000 27.3 Jerash camp Male 0.6082 0.6598 1.2680 4.4536 28.5 Total 0.6373 0.6275 1.2648 4.4510 28.4 Female 0.2917 0.2500 0.5417 3.8750 14.0 p dsjomI Male 0.5548 0.3139 0.6887 4.8978 17.7 Total 0.4938 0.3209 0.8147 4.7453 17.2 Female 0.5319 0.3778 0.9097 3.7283 24.4

The whole Male 0.6526 0.3808 1.0334 4.6972 22.0 sample Total 0.6365 0.3804 1.0169 4.5573 22.3

The results according to table No, (7) show the unemployment rate for the sample as a whole was 22.3%, while no significant differences in these rates between females and males seemed except in Irbid camp. Unemployment rate among families headed by women in the sample came to 24.4% versus 22.0% among families headed by men noting that the previous three rates concerning Jordan were in (2015) 13.0%, 22.5%, and 11.0% respectively. In other words, unemployment rates in the sample are obviously higher than their counterparts in the Jordanian

40 economy. However, the highest unemployment rate was registered among families headed by women in Irbid camp (34.1%). The lowest rate was also among families headed by women but in Suf camp (14.0%). In addition, and concerning camps, Jerash camp witnessed the highest unemployment rate (28.4%), whilst Suf camp experienced the lowest unemployment rates (17.2%). The result also showed a big gap in unemployment rates between families headed by women and those headed by men at the same camp, where the gap was the maximum in Irbid camp which unemployment rate among families headed by women was 34.1% against 22.2% for families headed by men. Such gap was the minimum in Jersah where the two rates came to 28.5% and 27.3 respectively noting that the last two rates are extremely high. Moreover, the average rates of unemployment in the camps of Irbid and Jerash were higher than the rate of the whole sample, unlike the rates in Al-Husn and Suf camps.

The results exhibited that gender played an essential role in determining unemployment rates whether for the sample as a whole or for each camp, where unemployment rates in all cases were higher among families headed by males than those headed by females except Irbid camp. This despite that females have fewer opportunities for education and at the same time, macho society stands as an obstacle to the economic empowerment of woman, where employers in labor market prefer males to females in general. This also applies to the Jordanian labor market at which the unemployment rate between females was in 2015 more than twice of that between males (22.5% versus 11.0%) (DOS, 2016). Despite that, the employment gap between females and males still in the sample of this study less than that in the Jordanian labor market taking into consideration that all females and males inside camps do have equal opportunities with those who are outside camps to get jobs. This is due to the differences in the rates of economic participation between the two categories and to the readiness extent of unemployed to work in formal or informal sectors regardless any other considerations except real wages.

Figure No. (15)

Unemployment rates according to the family head gender and camp (%)

40 34,1 35

28,5 28,4 30 27,3 23,9 24,4 25 22,2 22 22,3 21 20,3 20 17,7 17,2 15,5 14 15

0 Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample

Female Male Total

5.4 POVERTY RATES:

The level of income is considered as one of the most important indicators of poverty in any society, where low-income and retreat in the rates of economic growth are the main cause of poverty. As mentioned before, there are two measurements for poverty; the abject limit and absolute limit. While absolute poverty is the level of the minimal requirements necessary to afford minimal standards of food, clothing, health care and shelter, abject poverty is concerned in the minimal requirements necessary to afford minimal standards of food only. Abject poverty line expresses the lowest level of basic food needs without which man can live only for a short period, on contrary to the absolute poverty line, which is based on the required lowest standard of consumption level for meeting the basic requirements of food and non-food commodities such as clothes, residential house, education and health (Baker, 1996)

The family annual absolute poverty limit was in the latest poverty survey in 2010 about 4395.6 JODs while the abject limit was 1814.4.

Table No. (8) Family monthly income according to the family head gender and camp (JDs)

The The Unemplo Average Family Depende average average yment No. of home ncy ratio monthly annual rate (%) family space (%) income of income members (m2) the family of the

Head of (JDs) family Camp the family (JDs) Female 310.1 3721.2 34.1 6.3810 114.3929 70.7 d tlfsjomI Male 553.9 6646.8 22.2 7.4187 112.8321 55.6 Total 521.3 6255.6 23.9 7.2383 113.1069 57.7 Female 336.7 4040.4 15.5 6.4286 132.0000 90.1 p sjomI- i Male 453.7 5444.4 21.0 7.5711 109.3373 66.9 Total 438.1 5257.2 20.3 7.3908 113.0000 69.8 Female 296.7 3560.4 27.3 7.6824 143.0 89.8 Jerash camp Male 560.0 6720.0 28.5 7.6495 159.7 71.8 Total 524.8 6297.6 28.4 7.6529 157.5 72.4 Female 379.6 4555.2 14.0 6.2084 101.6111 60.2 p dsjomI Male 402.5 4830.0 17.7 7.6215 114.5780 56.0 Total 399.4 4792.8 17.2 7.4285 112.7402 56.5 Female 330.8 3969.6 24.4 6.5326 131.5373 75.2

The whole Male 492.7 5912.4 22.0 7.5467 117.3672 60.7 sample Total 471.1 5653.2 22.3 7.4004 119.4723 62.4

The results as shown in table No. (8) indicate that average annual income of the family in the sample was 5653.2 JDs. The results show a big difference in the annual income between families headed by men (5912.4 JDs) and those headed by women (3969.6 JDs). In addition, the highest annual income was 6720 JDs and registered for families headed men in Jerash camp, while the lowest income was also in Jerash camp, but for families headed by women and came to 3560.4 JDs. This, of course, means that the gender gap in terms of annual income was the maximum in Jersh camp. Despite that, the average annual income of the family was the highest in Jerash camp

(6297.6 JDs) narrowly from Irbid camp (6255.6 JDs), while the minimum average was in Suf camp (4792.8 JDs). Unlike Jerash camp, Suf camp witnessed the minimum income gap between males and females (4830.0 versus 4555.2 JDs respectively). Although, the highest average income for families headed by women between camps was in Suf camp and came to 4555.2 JDs, while the lowest average was in Jerash camp (3560.4 JDs).

One could conclude from the results that the maximum average income of families headed by men was in Jerash camp (6720.0 JDs) and associated with the highest male unemployment rate (28.5%) and also with an extremely high family size (7.6495 persons). While the maximum average income of families headed by women was in Suf camp and associated with the lowest female unemployment rate (14.0%), the minimum family size (6.2084 persons), lowest dependency ratio (60.2%), and the lowest family home space (101.6111m2) . Additionally, for families headed by women, the lowest annual average income was in Suf camp (3560.4 JDs) and associated with the highest family home space (143.0m2) and also with a high dependency ratio (89.8%).

This shows that the poverty indicators are well correlated, where income level, home space, unemployment rate, dependency ratio, and family size reflect the standard of living in any community.

Figure No. (16) Family monthly income according to the family head gender and camp (JDs)

Family monthly income according to the family head gender 600 553,9 and camp560 (JDs) 521,3 524,8 492,7 500 471,1 453,7438,1 402,5399,4 400 379,6 336,7 330,8 310,1 297,6 300

200

100

0 Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample Female Male Total

Table No. shows the percentage of families in the sample which falls below the abject and absolute poverty lines, where 7.4% of the families in the sample fell below the abject poverty line versus 48.6% were below the absolute poverty line. A significance differences in those percentages appeared according to gender differences, while only 5.6% of families headed by men in the sample were below the abject poverty line, the percentage came to 18.8% for families headed by women. This also applied to the absolute poverty line, where the previous two percentages were 45.6% and 67.8% respectively. This, of course, indicates that food poverty is narrowly spread in families headed by men compared to families headed by men. With respect to camps, and in terms of families fell below abject poverty line, the lowest rate was 4.3% for families headed by men in Suf camp, while the highest rate was in the Jerash camp (25.0%) for families headed by women. Moreover, the maximum percentage concerning the absolute poverty level (71.4%) was among families headed by women in Irbid camp, while the minimum one came 36.5 % for families headed by men in Jerash camp.

Table No. (9) The percentages of families below the limits of abject poverty and absolute poverty according to camp (%) The The % of % of average average families families monthly annual below the below the income of income abject absolute the family of the poverty poverty Head of (JDs) family line * line** Camp the family (JDs) Female 310.1 3721.2 14.3 71.4 Irbid camp Male 553.9 6646.8 7.1 40.5 Total 521.3 6255.6 8.3 45.5 Female 336.7 4040.4 15.8 68.4 Al-Husn camp Male 453.7 5444.4 5.8 52.9 Total 438.1 5257.2 7.2 55.0 Female 296.7 3560.4 25.0 60.0 Jerash camp Male 560.0 6720.0 5.6 36.5 Total 524.8 6297.6 6.5 37.6 Female 379.6 4555.2 20.8 62.5 Suf camp Male 402.5 4830.0 4.3 53.9 Total 399.4 4792.8 6.7 55.2 Female 330.8 3969.6 18.8 67.8

The whole Male 492.7 5912.4 5.6 45.6

sample Total 471.1 5653.2 7.4 48.6 * Abject poverty limit for a family in Jordan equals 1814.6 JDs/ year. ** Absolute poverty limit for a family in Jordan equals 4395.6 JDs/ year.

It should be noted that although the percentages concerning both lines of poverty were lower for families headed by men in all camps, some convergence was found in some camps between the percentages concerning absolute poverty line for families headed by women and those headed by men. Those percentages are relatively close in Suf camp (62.5% and 53.9% respectively) and also in Al-Husn camp (52.9% and 68.4% respectively). In addition, the absolute poverty rate was so close to each other, where it, where they came to 55.0% in Al-Husn camp, and 55.2% in Suf

46 camp. While the rate concerning the abject poverty line was very close to each other in two camps only: Jrreash camp (6.5%) and Suf camp (6.5%).

It is obvious from the results that the families in the sample in general and according to camps as well suffer more from poverty in families headed by women more than families headed by men. This could be interpreted that the annual average income was different between the two categories; it came to 5912.4 JDs for families headed by men versus only 3969.6 for families headed by women. Also, there was some kind of convergence in the income of families headed by men coincided with relatively higher levels of income, lower unemployment rates, and lower dependency rates. Furthermore, the differences in the sources of income between the two categories confirmed that most of the families headed by men depended on stable sources of income such as wages and salaries and remittances from abroad, which in turn improved income distribution equality. This becomes clear through the values of the standard deviation of income, where they were lower in the case of the families headed by men. However, inequality of income distribution seems serious amongst families in the sample as about half (48.6%) of those families fell below the absolute poverty line and 7.4% below the abject poverty line.

Figure No. (17) Percentages of families below abject poverty line

% of families below abject poverty line

25 25 20,8 18,8 20 15,8 14,3 15

8,3 10 7,1 7,2 6,7 7,4 5,8 5,6 6,5 5,6 4,3 5

0 Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample

Famalies headed by women Families headed by men Whole sample

Figure No. (18) Percentages of families below abject poverty line

% of families below asolute poverty line

80 71,4 68,4 67,8 70 60 62,5 55 55,2 60 52,9 53,9 48,6 45,5 45,6 50 40,5 36,537,6 40 30 20 10 0 Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample

Famalies headed by women Families headed by men Whole sample

CONCLUSION: This study aimed at explaining the impact of gender differences on causing unemployment and poverty in a sample from four Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, namely: Irbid, Al-Husn, Jerash, and Suf camp. The study also aims to answer the main following inquiry: “Do the differences in gender have an impact on causing unemployment and poverty among families inside Palestinian camps in Jordan?”. Therefore, in order to attain the objectives of the study through collecting the needed data from interviewees, a comprehensive questionnaire was designed. The collected data were analyzed and getting a completed characterization for the study sample which included 674 families, and then explaining whether gender differences stand as a cause for unemployment and poverty inside camps through using descriptive statistics. The study used two levels of analyses, the first at the level of the camp with the overall sample, while the second at the level of the families whether they were headed by women or men with the overall sample.

Concerning to the characteristics of the study sample, the results showed that the average family size was large (7.4004 persons) and more than 85% of the families had acquired the Jordanian

48 citizenship, while the average number of family members who were classified as Palestinian displaced persons reached 1.5047. that was accompanied with both a relatively low family residence space which came to only 119.1419 m2, and a modest monthly average income of the family which was 471.1 JDs. Moreover, families allocated on average about 19.2% of their income on financing the education of their kids, where the annual family expenditure on education amounted 1083.7241 JDs. At the same time students in camps still enroll public schools side by side with UNRWA schools, and on this regard, the average number of children who were studying in public schools was 1.45 females and 1.05 males. However, the living conditions of families looked simple, where 82.0% of the them owned their residences, wages and salaries contributed 56.0% of the family income, land and real estate forms 74.1% of the main family property outside camps

With respect to employment in the sample, the results exhibited that the average number of employed in the family was 0.90 males and 0.72 females, while the average number of unemployed in the family came to 0.38 males and 0.55 females. That simply means that the number working persons was higher than unemployed in camps. Jordanian government and the UNRWA are considered the main employer of wives (62.4%). Additionally, the average number of employed under working age in the family was 0.15 persons, where only one working child was found in about half of the families which had child labor, which indicates that child labor is a narrowly spread phenomenon in camps, but warns of the dangers of future if not tackled.

Dropping out schools seems a significant problem in camps, respondents determined the reasons behind that, where the main motives were school failure (28.0%), disintegration of family (14.3%), and careless and indifference (13.7%). Those who dropped out female children work mainly at the homes of others (59.3%) while peddling and working at garages were the main work for dropped out males (21.6% and 16.2% respectively). For children who seek vocational training rather than academic education, where 64.6% of who enrolled training programs were under the supervision of the Jordanian vocational training corporation.

Youth unemployment became worry and concern in camps and respondents attributed this problem to some reasons, while 37.4% of them imagined that shame culture stands behind youth unemployment in camps 22.7% imputed the problem to the lack of feasible job opportunity. Therefore, 39.6% of the respondents urged the Jordanian government to establish public projects

49 devoted mainly to serve camps and to solve youth unemployment there, while 23.7% concentrated on the enrollment of children in education as the way for the future.

The results also showed substantial differences in the characteristics of the sample due to differences in the gender of the head of the family, where the families headed by men were larger in terms of size (7.5467 persons) compared to those headed by women (6.5326 persons), which resulted in a higher number of both family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship (6.7667 versus 6.1574person), and IDPs in the family (1.6712 versus 0.8529 person). Also, the average ages of both mother and father were higher in families headed by women demonstrating that woman have been responsible for the sustenance of her children, and in sometimes her elderly and impotent husband. Concerning education, families headed by women gave more interest in investing in human capital through increasing their expenditures on sons’ education more than families headed by men, where the average number of children in the family who enrolled in free education in public schools, was higher for the families headed by men. In addition, living conditions between the two categories seem disparate, although the slight differences in the residences space for all families, considerable differences in the level of income were found for the favor of families headed by men (492.7 versus 330.8 JDs for families headed by women). Moreover, unemployment levels measured by the average number of unemployed in the family demonstrated that this problem was more prevalent in families headed by women, unlike employment levels, at which the average number of employed, was higher in the families headed by men. Although child labor is not widespread phenomenon in camps, its existence was more in families headed by women mainly due to the absence or retreat of father’s role in those families, which are in need for additional income sources so as to cover the costs of life requirements, even if child work became the way for attain that. One of the interesting findings of this study that dependency rate in the sample was so close to the rate in Jordan. Despite that, big differences were registered among families in camps, where the highest rate was in Jarash camp (72.4) while the lowest rate was in Suf camp (56.5). Gender differences were correlated with differences in dependency rates in the sample as a whole, at which this rate came to 75.2 for families headed by women against 60.7 for families headed by men. counter differences were also found between camps, where high dependency rates were registered in families headed by women, in Irbid camp (90.1) and then in Jerash Camp (89.8), whilst the minimum rate was for families headed by men in Irbid camp (55.6).

High unemployment rate stands out as one of the most challenges facing youth in Jordan in general and inside camps in particular. The study ended with important conclusion that unemployment rates were higher than the rate in Jordan, and also higher amongst females in all levels whether the family headed by women or men. the maximum unemployment rate was for families headed by women in Irbid camp (34.1%) whilst the minimum rate was for families headed also by women in Suf camps (14.0%). On camps level, the highest unemployment rate was in Jerash camp (28.4%) while the lowest rate was in Suf camp (17.2%). It is important to say here that unemployment rate for females in Jordan is more than the double rate for males (22.5 against 11.0% in 2015) unlike the unemployment rates in the whole sample which demonstrated a convergence (24.4 against 22.0% respectively). This also applies to all camps except Irbid camp, where big difference appeared between unemployment rate among families headed by women (34.1%) and those headed by men (22.2%). This is because Irbid camp had a relatively average number of unemployed females (0.70) and unemployed males (0.5750) in the family taking into consideration that this camp included 42 out of 90 families headed by women.

The study found significant differences in the income levels due to the gender the family head, of course to the benefit of families headed by men and in all camps. those differences came in varying degrees, where they were highest in Jerash camp and lowest in Suf camp. furthermore, the relatively low income levels of the families in the sample coincided with other variables which reflected the hard circumstances the families live, such as high unemployment rates, high dependency rates, small residences space, large family size...etc. However, the gender of the family head played a vital role in determining the poverty extent of the family, where the families below both abject and absolute poverty limits were higher in the case of families headed by women in all camps. The rates of poverty for the sample were extremely high despite that this study was based on poverty limits which were extracted from the last poverty survey which was conducted before six years, where the cost of living in Jordan has drastically increased since 2010.

This study introduced to further research on socio-economic characteristics of refugee community in Jordan in general, and particularly inside camps. Such scientific research is to test whether refugees have analogous living conditions with the hosting community, which in turn enable policy makers to devote public policies to improve the lives of marginalized groups in the

51 society and among of which refugee community. Gender issues became today one of the most important determinants of economic sufficiency of families and individuals as well, where the gender is organically linked with many economic, social, and demographic variables which all determine the empowerment of individuals and groups. Therefore, it is rather than important to investigate the role of gender differences in enforcing the empowerment of women and men on an equal foot. This quantitative study has diagnosed the impact of the gender on two important and related phenomena; unemployment and poverty using a non-probabilistic sample in four Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, which is in fact considered an addition to the research efforts in this field. But qualitative research in this vital field became a need to interpret the behavior of variables and phenomena concerning refugees, gender, unemployment and poverty at the same time. Hence, this study recommends to conduct its phase II via adopting a qualitative analysis depending on the outcome of this study.

Finally, although refugee women inside the camps suffer from common difficulties which other women face in hosting communities, they improved the living condition of their families, which was shown through bridging the gender gap with men in terms of some important indicators. Unemployment and poverty constitute an obsession for males and females alike, nevertheless refugee women who headed their families succeeded to control the hard conditions by turning the challenge into an opportunity. This was clear out of the relatively low unemployment rates among those families, as well as, their allocation of much money to invest in educating their kids for a better future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Adefolalu, A.A. (1992): Poverty in Nigeria; Some of Its Dimensions and Consequences. SECOM Associate Publication, Ibadan, Nigeria.

- Athamneh, Abdel Baset (2016), Jordan Refugee Policy, Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS), University of Osnabrück, Germany, Retrieved from http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/laenderprofile/234510/jordanian-refugee-policy.

- Atom Basem & Abdel Baset Athamneh (2009), Poverty diagnosis in two refugee camps- Jordan, ABHATH AL YARMOUK JOURNAL –Humanities and Social Sciences Series, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp 193-206. - Baker, Mohammed Hussein (1996) Poverty Measurement in the Countries of Economic and Social Commission of West Asia, UN, NY. - DSS (Department of Social Security) (1999) Opportunity for All: Tackling poverty and social exclusion, London: The Stationery Office. - DeFina, Robert H. (2002), "Does Lower Unemployment Reduce Poverty?", Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Third Quarter, pp. 34-41. - Dermott, E., & Pantazis, C. (2014). Gender and Poverty in Britain: Changes and Continuities between 1999 and 2012. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 22(3), 253-269.

- Dornbusch, Rudiger and Fisher, Stanley (1994), Macroeconomics, sixth edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc, USA.

- EEC (European Economic Community) (1985) On Specific Community Action to Combat Poverty (Council Decision of 19 December 1984) 85/8/EEC, Official Journal of the EEC, 2/24 - European Commission (2014), Tackling the gender pay gap in the European Union, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/140319_gpg_en.pdf ILO (2014), ILO’s - FAFO and UNFPA (2007), Iraqis in Jordan: Their Number and Characteristics, Amman. - Faridi, M. Z., Chaudhry, I. S. & Mumtaz, A. (2009). The socio economic and demographic determinants of women work participation in Pakistan: Evidence from Bahawalpur District. A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 24(2), 351-367 - Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1997), Gender: the key to sustainability and food security, SD Dimensions, May 1997. - García, L. M. R., & Romero, D. M. (2016). Impact of Social Exclusion in Transsexual People in Spain from an Intersectional and Gender Perspective. SAGE Open, 6(3), 2158244016666890.

- Garduño-Rivera, R. (2013). Factors that Influence Women’s Economic Participation in Mexico. Economía Mexicana NUEVA ÉPOCA, 22(4, Cierre de época (II)), 541-564.s - Grusky, D. and Kanbur, R. (2006), ―Introduction: The conceptual foundations of Poverty and Inequality Measurement‖, in Grusky, D. and Kanbur, R. (eds.), Poverty and Inequality. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Handley.

- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Department of Palestinian Affair (2016), Palestinian refugee camps. Retrieved from http://www.dpa.gov.jo/en/.

- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Department of Statistics (DOS) (2016a), Jordan in Figures 2015.

- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Department of Statistics (DOS) (2016b), Results of the General Population and Housing Census 2015, Amman.

- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Labor (2016), Annual Report, various issues (2011-2015), Amman. Retrieved from http://mol.gov.jo/Pages/Reports.aspx.

- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1967), Reports of the Higher Ministerial Committee for the Relief of Refugees and Displaced Persons.

- Ibrahim, Issa et al. (1989), the study of the reality and future of the Jordanian labor market, the third part, the Jordanian labor market database, Royal Scientific Society, Amman.

- International Labor Organization (2013), Equal Pay: An Introductory Guide, ILO Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland. - International Labor Organization (2009), Guide to the New Millennium Development Goals including the Full Set of Decent Work Indicators. Geneva: International Labor Office Employment Sector. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/ - edemp/documents/publication/wcmsl 105 1 1 .pdf. - International Labor Organization (ILO) (2016), ILOSTAT Database: Definitions, https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/faces/home/statisticaldata/conceptsdefinitions?_adf.ctrl- state=58apy9jzl_21&_afrLoop=31011326101938#! - Kamerman, S. B. (1984). Women, children, and poverty: Public policies and female-headed families in industrialized countries. Signs, 10(2), 249-271s - Kelso, W. A. (1994), Poverty and the underclass: Changing perceptions of the poor in America. NYU Press.

- Lewis, P, Saunders, M, Thornhill, A (2012), Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow: Pitman Publishing.

- Levitan, S. A., & Gallo, F. (1988). A Continued Federal Commitment. - Mathieson, J., J. Popay, E. Enoch, S. Escorel, M. Hernandez, H. Johnston et L. Rispel (2008). Social Exclusion: Meaning, Measurement and Experience and Links to Health Inequalities: A Review of Literature, background paper no. 1, WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network. - McLanahan, S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of poverty. American journal of Sociology, 873-901. - Meulders, Danièle and Plasman, Robert and Rigo Andrey and O’Dorchai, Síle (2010), Horizontal & Vertical Segregation, Université Libre de Bruxelle- Département d’Économie Appliquée. - Moepeng, Pelotshweu and Tisdell, Clem (2008). The socio-economic situation of female heads and poor heads of households in rural Botswana: A village case study. Working Papers on Social Economics, Policy and Development 48, School of Economics, The University of Queensland. - The National Women’s Law Center (2011), Poverty among women and families, 2000-2010: extreme poverty reaches record levels as a congress faces critical choice, Washington, DC. - OECD (2016), OECD Social and Welfare Statistics Database, http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/data/oecd-social-and-welfare-statistics_socwel-data- en.

- Omari, Mokhullud 2002, the Absorption Capacity of Labor in Jordanian Economy: An Econometric Study (1968-2000), Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Economics, Yarmouk University, Irbid-Jordan.

- Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. and Levitas, R. (2006), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Bristol, The Policy Press. - Rodgers, Joan R. (1994) Female-Headed Families: Why Are They So Poor? Review of Social Economy, 52:2, 22-47, DOI: 10.1080/758519572. - Ryscavage, P. (1982). Employment problems and poverty: Examining the linkages. Monthly Labor Review, 105(6), 55-59. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41841832. - Snyder, Anastasia; McLaughlin, Diane K.; Findeis, Jill; Coleman, Alisha; Demi, Mary Ann (2005), Race, residence and family structure: race / ethnic differences in poverty among female- headed families, Population Research Institute, VA, USA. - Spierings, Niels, Smits, Jeroen, & Verloo, Mieke (2010). Micro and macro level determinants of women's empowerment in 6 Arab countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1391–1407.

- Tiltnes, Å. A., & Zhang, H. (2014). The socio-economic conditions of Jordan’s Palestinian camp refugees, Fafo-report 2014:47, OSLO, Norway.s - UN (1995), The Copenhagen Declaration and Program of Action: World Summit for Social Development 6-12 March 1995, New York, NY: United Nations Department of Publications. van den Bosch, K. (1998) ‘Perceptions - United Nations Development Program (2006); ―Human Development Report‖ Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. ‘UNDP, New York.

- United Nations Developmental Program (UNDP) (2013), Jordan Poverty Reduction Strategy Final Report, Amman.

- United Nations/ Department of Economic and Social Affairs / Population Division (2002), World Population Ageing: 1950-2050, New York: United Nations.

- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2003), UNESCO'S Gender Mainstreaming Implementation Framework: Baseline definitions of key concepts and terms.

- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2016), Jordan fact sheet (October 2015), Amman. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/news/updates/2014/9/4c90819a9/jordan- fact-sheet.html.

- United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Middle East (UNRWA) (2006), Consolidated and Eligibility Instructions, http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/2010011995652.pdf [Accessed 20/11/2010], p.32.

- The United Nations (1995), the Report of General Commissioner of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, 1995, p. 65

- World Bank (2005), Global Economic Prospects 2006, Washington, D.C. - The World Bank (2007), World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

- The World Health Organization (WHO) (2011), Gender mainstreaming for health managers: a practical approach, http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/knowledge/glossary/en/.